Abstract

This note contains issues submitted against the XHTML
1.1 document that need to be addressed prior to
updating it for Second Edition.

Status of this document

Since its release, a number of comments have been sent in against
the XHTML 1.1 document. This document contains those
issues, as well as a recommended disposition for each. Once the
working group has confirmed the dispositions, a Disposition of
Comments document will be created and made available to reviewers of
the XHTML 1.1 Second Edition Proposed Edited Recommendation.
This document summarizes the information about 21 open issues in
the issue tracking system at http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/voyager-issues.

Note that the majority of this document is
automatically generated from the Working Group's database of comments. As
such, it may contain typographical or stylistic errors. If so, these are
contained in the original submissions, and the HTML Working Group elected to
not change these submissions.

This document is a Note of the W3C's HTML Working Group.
This Note may be updated,
replaced or rendered obsolete by other W3C documents at any time. It
is inappropriate to use W3C Notes as reference material
or to cite them as other than "work in progress". This document
is work in progress and does not imply endorsement by the W3C membership.

Please send detailed comments on this document to www-html-editor@w3.org.
We cannot guarantee a personal response, but
we will try when it is appropriate. Public discussion on HTML features
takes place on the mailing list
www-html@w3.org.

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can
be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.

This is a lingering issue about whether an imagemap takes a URI or an IDREF. We
have had many requests to change this. My recommendation is that we ask the
HTML Working Group what *works* today in implementations and then support this
in our languages. period. Even if doing so would make an existing VALID
document INVALID. My rationale is actually spelled out by the requestor below.
VALID and not working is useless.

The working group agreed that the media type SHOULD be application/xhtml+xml.
The group did NOT agree that we add the restriction about the document type
text/html not being used because a document author may need to make that
compromise. The working group does not believe the specification should prevent
an author from making this compromise.

This is a M12N issue, but is fixed in by building against the latest version of
M12N.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:39:32 +0900 (JST)
From: "Grant Husbands" <www-html-editor@grant.x43.net>
From: "Grant Husbands" <www-html-editor@grant.x43.net>
To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Subject: id Attribue For script Tag
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:01:50 +0100
Message-ID: <000f01c48a0c$cfb32000$be64a8c0@bwsint.com>
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/000f01c48a0c$cfb32000$be64a8c0@bwsint.com
Hi,
I've recently been validating a document that has an id attribute on a
script tag. According to the XHTML 1.0 DTD, that seems to be valid.
According to the XHTML 1.1 DTD, it does not seem to be valid. However,
Appendix A in XHTML 1.1 does not list the removal of that id as a change
from XHTML 1.0. Also, two of the four validators that I've tried (Page Valet
and ARealValidator) claim that id isn't a valid attribute of script, anyway,
regardless of the XHTML DTD used (I've e-mailed the authors of those,
separately).
The id for the script in the page I'm validating is going to be removed,
because it's not very useful, but XHTML 1.1 would seem to be in error in
removing that attribute, according to its own appendix.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Regards,
Grant Husbands.

The group resolved to NOT implement this change, since we do not make changes
only to work around bugs in implementations.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:17:10 +0900 (JST)
From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>(by way of "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>)
From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Subject: Change request of XHTML 1.1 DTD: use absolute URIs for Entities which are referenced from different base hrefs than the declaring document
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:50:32 +0200
Message-ID: <000101c13dfe$26feb9e0$b18f9b3e@andromeda>
Dear HTML Editors,
I request a small change in the DTD for XHTML 1.1. The change would not
change the structure or semantics, I only request to change a relative URI
into an absolute one.
When using XHTML 1.1 with current XML software, many parsers won't process
the XHTML 1.1 but abort with an error message. The reason, of course,
resides in errors in the parsers, not in the DTD files of XHTML 1.1 / XHTML
Modularization.
At least one parser, AElfred, which is used by the famous saxon XSLT
processor, probably the most popular XSLT processor, has a serious bug.
When using AElfred, I get the following error:
> Transformation failed: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod
The reason is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd *declares* this Entity:
<!ENTITY % xhtml-model.mod PUBLIC
"-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML 1.1 Document Model 1.0//EN"
"xhtml11-model-1.mod"
>
(contains relative URI: xhtml11-model-1.mod)
And http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-framework-1.mod
*references* this Entity:
<!ENTITY % xhtml-model.module "INCLUDE" >
<![%xhtml-model.module;[
<!-- instantiate the Document Model module declared in the DTD driver -->
%xhtml-model.mod;
]]>
(changed formatting of both citations for readability)
>From the XML Recommendation:
"Unless otherwise provided by information outside the scope of
this specification (e.g. a special XML element type defined by a particular
DTD, or a processing instruction defined by a particular application
specification),
relative URIs are relative to the location of the resource within which the
entity declaration occurs."
Means *declaration*, not *reference*.
But AElfred resolves the URI of the external parsed entity "xhtml-model.mod"
at the *reference* the entity, not at the *declaration* of the entity.
So this is what AElfred resolves:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod
And this is what conforming XML Parsers must resolve:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod
So AElfred, at least the version used by saxon, has a bug.
Since more XML Parsers and software based on them might have this bug,
there's a hint on that on the www-html@w3.org mailing list, and since it
will take some time until these bugs are fixed, I suggest, that the HTML
working group changes the URI of the drivers to be absolute URLs.
I suggest changing
<!ENTITY % xhtml-model.mod PUBLIC
"-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML 1.1 Document Model 1.0//EN"
"xhtml11-model-1.mod"
>
to
<!ENTITY % xhtml-model.mod PUBLIC
"-//W3C//ENTITIES XHTML 1.1 Document Model 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11-model-1.mod"
>
in file http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd.
I have *not* checked wether this is the only external parsed entity that
requires a change of it's URI to work with buggy XML parsers.
Nearly all other URIs already are absolute URLs, especially those
referencing XHTML Modularization. I really do not think, that this change
would have any side effects.
Greetings
--
ITCQIS GmbH
Information Technology Consulting, Qualifying and Individual Solutions
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter
Tel: +49 (0)89 - 27370437
Fax: +49 (0)89 - 27370439
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/

This is a request to loosen the definition of UL and is a comment on M12N, not
on XHTML 1.1. However, I believe we should reject the request because we never
want to call a list with no entries valid.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:13:40 +0900 (JST)
From: Martin Konicek <konicekmartin@seznam.cz>
From: Martin Konicek <konicekmartin@seznam.cz>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Subject: (X)HTML DTD <ul> stricly request <li>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:46:17 +0200
Message-ID: <40BDDA29.5000908@seznam.cz>
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/40BDDA29.5000908@seznam.cz
I found this part of XHTML1.1 DTD:
<!ELEMENT ul (li)+>
I thing, it's not usefull to strictly requested <li>, because for
practical use, you could have this problem.
Some script:
<ul>
<loop><li>some row</li></loop>
</ul>
There is problem, in fact is many situation, where you have no data and
you will get this results:
<ul></ul>
I thing it's better to accapt this as correct. I thing, there is no
problem with this code, element <ul> in practice could be emty, why not?
//Martin Konicek

FOLLOWUP 1:

Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:24:16 +0900 (JST)
From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
To: Martin Konicek <konicekmartin@seznam.cz>
Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
Subject: Re: (X)HTML DTD <ul> stricly request <li>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:19:09 -0400
Message-ID: <40BE0C0D.8060302@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/40BE0C0D.8060302@bacon.qcc.mass.edu
Martin Konicek wrote:
>
> I found this part of XHTML1.1 DTD:
>
> <!ELEMENT ul (li)+>
>
> I thing, it's not usefull to strictly requested <li>, because for
> practical use, you could have this problem.
>
> Some script:
> <ul>
> <loop><li>some row</li></loop>
> </ul>
>
> There is problem, in fact is many situation, where you have no data
> and you will get this results:
>
> <ul></ul>
>
> I thing it's better to accapt this as correct. I thing, there is no
> problem with this code, element <ul> in practice could be emty, why not?
>
> //Martin Konicek
>
>
if you want to do a loop in a script set a class on the looped
attribute(s) and go that way, I see no point in loosening <ul> for a
"hey this might be possible"
Plus, what would you say <ul></ul> (or more specific in XHTML <ul />)
would do...to me it would be a headache for any speach processor, and
just stuck there openly would be hard to STRUCTURELY accept.
you need at least one list-item in a [unordered]-List, you can't really
call it a list without at least one item, can you (imho it should
restrict to at least two items, but thats just me).
~Justin Wood

This will be automatically addressed when the final flat version for Second
Edition is generated.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:22:21 +0900 (JST)
From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Just to follow-up why this happened ...
pastelsbadges@nyc.odn.ne.jp wrote:
> XHTML 1.1 DTD (not flat) is including "xhtml-datatypes-1.mod",
> and parameter entity "Color.datatype" is defined in this module.
> In XHTML 1.1 flat DTD, however, the parameter entity declaration of
> "Color.datatype" disappears. Is this an eratta?
It seems the "flat" DTD used revision 4.0 of DTD modules, which was
the latest version at the time XHTML 1.1 PR was published on 6 April 2001.
REC version of DTD modules (published on 10 April 2001) were revision 4.1,
and %Color.datatype; bug was fixed between these revisions, per PR#431 [1].
We didn't regenerate the "flat" DTD when we published XHTML 1.1 REC,
though, as Shane said, this doesn't really affect XHTML 1.1 per se.
[1] http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/Modularization-text?id=431;user=guest;selectid=431
Regards,
--
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

This is a lingering issue about whether an imagemap takes a URI or an IDREF. We
have had many requests to change this. My recommendation is that we ask the
HTML Working Group what *works* today in implementations and then support this
in our languages. period. Even if doing so would make an existing VALID
document INVALID. My rationale is actually spelled out by the requestor below.
VALID and not working is useless.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:16:19 +0900 (JST)
From: Doom Gloom <animedorei@yahoo.com>
From: Doom Gloom <animedorei@yahoo.com>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Subject: XHTML 1.1 Validation Problem
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20040710032311.77250.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com>
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20040710032311.77250.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com
I tried to validate an document using the XHTML 1.1 DTD. I served it as application/xhtml+xml as I am supposed to do. However, I used a client-side image map in my document. It worked, but it did not validate. The validator said the "#" sign is not valid in the USEMAP attribute of the <img> tag, so I removed it. The image map didn't work after removing it, but it validated. I checked out your Image Module and your Client-Side Image Map Module. It seems that you guys forgot to add the USEMAP attribute to the Image Module. Is this true? Please reply.
Thanks,
Web designer
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

FOLLOWUP 1:

From: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:09:43 +0200
> From: Doom Gloom <animedorei@yahoo.com>
Thanks for your comments.
> I tried to validate an document using the XHTML 1.1 DTD. I served it as
> application/xhtml+xml as I am supposed to do. However, I used a
client-side image
> map in my document. It worked, but it did not validate. The validator said
the "#"
> sign is not valid in the USEMAP attribute of the <img> tag, so I removed
it. The
> image map didn't work after removing it, but it validated. I checked out
your Image
> Module and your Client-Side Image Map Module. It seems that you guys
forgot to
> add the USEMAP attribute to the Image Module. Is this true? Please reply.
Which browser are you using?
The usemap attribute is certainly in the Image Map module
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_imapmodule
and is clearly marked as an IDREF.
Best wishes,
Steven Pemberton

The working group agreed that the media type SHOULD be application/xhtml+xml.
The group did NOT agree that we add the restriction about the document type
text/html not being used because a document author may need to make that
compromise. The working group does not believe the specification should prevent
an author from making this compromise.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:05:27 -0000
From: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
From the new working draft of XHTML 1.1:
> XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled withthe Internet Media Type
> text/html as defined
> in [RFC2854]
Which says:
In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use
of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and
which may also be labeled as text/html.
... making no mention of XHTML 1.1.
> or application/xhtml+xml as definedin [RFC3236]. For further information
> on using
> media types with XHTML, see the informative
> note [XHTMLMIME].
Which says:
In general, this media type is NOT suitable for
XHTML.
and
The use of 'text/html' for XHTML SHOULD be limited
for the purpose of rendering on existing HTML user
agents, and SHOULD be limited to [XHTML1] documents
which follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines.
and to paraphrase the summary tables:
XHTML 1.1 SHOULD NOT be served as text/html
Additionally, as far as I know, nothing added in XHTML 1.1 (i.e. Ruby
annotation) is supported by legacy user agents. So there seems little
point in allowing it to be served as text/html.
I propose the following change:
XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type
application/xhtml+xml as defined in [RFC3236]. They SHOULD NOT be labeled
with the Internet Media Type text/html as defined in [RFC2854]. For
further information on using media types with XHTML, see the informative
note [XHTMLMIME].
--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>

I think we should re-introduce the name attribute for form and img. These
attributes are needed by the (X)HTML DOM.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

From: "Mike Agnes" <MAgnes@hungryminds.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:17:11 +0900
From: Mike Agnes <MAgnes@hungryminds.com>
To: "'www-html-editor@w3.org'" <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Subject: errata: XHTML 1.1
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 06:54:44 -0500
Message-ID: <5C3884E725E60A419834EB4AEE240F4C0CE80E@in-exchange.idgbooks.com>
At page
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/changes.html
it states that
On the a and map elements, the name attribute has been removed in
favor of the id attribute
(as defined in [XHTMLMOD]).
I believe this should read "On the a, form, img, and map elements, . . ."
Justification:
(1) In the specification of XHTML 1.0, at page
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
it states (section 4.10) that
HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form,
frame, iframe, img, and map.
HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. Both of these attributes
are designed to be used
as fragment identifiers.
. . .
Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is
formally deprecated,
and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML.
(2) XHTML 1.1 documents that DO use the name attribute with form or img
elements do not validate with the W3C validator.
Mike Agnes
magnes@hungryminds.com

FOLLOWUP 1:

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:24:32 +0900
Hello,
MAgnes@hungryminds.com wrote:
> At page
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/changes.html
> it states that
> On the a and map elements, the name attribute has been removed in
> favor of the id attribute
> (as defined in [XHTMLMOD]).
>
> I believe this should read "On the a, form, img, and map elements, . . ."
You are right, XHTML 1.1 doesn't use the Name Identification Module [1]
so the "name" attribute is not defined on "form" and "img", either.
Thanks for your error report.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_nameidentmodule
Regards,
--
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:42:44 +0900
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Errata in XHTML 1.1
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 04:42:29 +0200
Message-ID: <koudht87ec1409591t0mtm7me4p573tdne@4ax.com>
Hi,
Referring to http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531
Section 3:
there is an unmatched bracket in the second paragraph.
the last module is introduced via "XHTML also uses the Ruby Annotation
module as defined in [RUBY]". Since e.g. XHTML 1.0 doesn't use this
module, it should the "XHTML 1.1 also ..." or "The XHTML 1.1 document
type"
Section 2.1.1:
the last paragraph states (as in XHTML 1.0) about the XML declaration:
"Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the
document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16."
According to Philippe Le Hegaret this is wrong and subject for the XML
1.0 SE errata. The sentence should be
"Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the
document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16 and no encoding
was determined by a higher-level protocol."
I reported this to xml-editor@w3.org but got no reply till today.
Maybe this should be discussed with the XML WG and corrected in
XHTML 1.0 Second Edition.
appendix b.1:
Why has the normative reference to ISO 8879:1986 (SGML) been commented
out?
general:
several passages use element tt where they should use code.
--
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:30:52 +0900 (JST)
From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
To: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Subject: Riding on an 'S' (Was: Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/xhtml11.html Error)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 19:01:29 +0100
Message-ID: <000101c17e80$07ceedc0$818f9b3e@andromedacwh>
Dear HTML issue tracking system,
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, I wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In section 3. The XHTML 1.1 Document Type
>
> The module for the table elements is named "Table Module". The name of the
> module is wrong. The correct name of the module is "Tables Module" (I
think the
> module name in XHTML-Modularization is the normative
> module name).
>
> Greetings
>
> Christian Wolfgang Hujer
This message is still in the incoming folder. I think this mainly is the
case because most might think "this is just an s, what's the point?!".
I explain.
I am writing a documentation about HTML. This documentation shall document
all elements and attributes of all official and unofficial HTML versions
including their support in many browsers and their versions (at least 30).
For newer, XHTML Modularization based, HTML versions, I wrote an XML
document, which refers to the modules by their name. resulting document,
which transforms the module selection document to a complete HTML version
description by merging with module description documents, did not contain
the expected table elements, because there was no module named "Table
Module". It failed just because of that small missing "s".
So sometimes, it's not a human, that works with a recommendation, sometimes
its a machine. That's why I desire not just correct but identical spelling
;)
And last but not least I want to thank the W3C for the great work and hope
that XHTML Schemata will soon be available.
Greetings
Christian Hujer

Went through the document and ensured uppercase and annotations were used when
an assertion was actually an assertion.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:07:10 +0900 (JST)
From: Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
From: Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Cc: Olle Olsson <olleo@w3.org>
Subject: XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML [#2]
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: <3F61D8E0.5060108@sics.se>
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/3F61D8E0.5060108@sics.se
[ This was sent to www-html, but it is more appropriate to
www-html-editor /olle ]
Hi,
I would like to have a minor issue clarified.
In "XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML" (W3C REC 31 May 2001,
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ ), in section 2, "Conformance
Definition", (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html) we find,
in the introduction, the following statement:
<excerpt>
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to
be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
</excerpt>
This wording confused me, as I do not see any occurrences of uppercase
"MUST", etc. in the REC. Two possible interpretations:
(1) "well, no harm putting this statement in the doc, event though it
does not apply to anything there."
(2) "actually, this statement refers to _all_ occurrences of "must",
etc., in lower case as well as any other "cased" variants thereof."
If the second alternative is the correct one, then one has to be very
careful when reading the REC. It of easy to regard "shall" as nice
syntactic sugar in the language, while "SHALL" definitely raises a
warning flag.
I would be thankful for a clarification of how the excerpt reproduced
above applies to this REC.
regards,
/olle
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olle Olsson olleo@sics.se Tel: +46 8 633 15 19 Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
[Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org]
SICS [Swedish Institute of Computer Science]
Box 1263
SE - 164 29 Kista
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed editorial issue. Need to discuss whether @href on base is IMPLIED or
REQUIRED for XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 00:51:03 +0900 (JST)
From: Christian Hujer <Christian@hujer.com>(by way of "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>)
From: Christian Hujer <Christian@hujer.com>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Subject: More error in XHTML 1.1
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:34:17 +0200
Message-ID: <15ckmJ-0MzVXEC@fmrl00.sul.t-online.com>
Hello,
In Section 3. The XHTML 1.1 Document Type,
the module for the script element is named "Stylesheet Module". XHTML Modularization calls this module "Style Sheet Module".
On the base element:
In HTML 4.01, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #REQUIRED.
In XHTML 1.0, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #IMPLIED.
In XHTML 1.1, the href attribute of the base element is defined as #REQUIRED.
I think, #IMPLIED is correct, because it should be able to use <base target="frame2" /> when the Frames Module is used.
On the form element:
The action attribute is required. I think it should be implied, and the user agent must use the URI containing the form element as destination for submitting the form when there is no action parameter.
Anyway, action is a bad name for that attribute since it has similar semantics as href in a, base and link and src in img and ... (object, applet...). But I think this will change for the better in XHTML 2.0 when making use
of XML Base, XML Linking, XPointer etc..
Greetings
Christian Hujer

Looks like we resolved to change the datatype of usemap to URI sometime ago.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:27:50 +0900 (JST)
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Subject: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:51:17 +0200
Message-Id: <20020128225116.MQVI24910.fep01-app.kolumbus.fi@oemcomputer>
[posted to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
and mailed to www-html-editor@w3.org]
In message news:a33jn8$12s$1@mordred.cc.jyu.fi
Ville Seppänen <rissepp@itu.st.jyu.fi> wrote:
> The problem is that a document which contains a client-side imagemap
> does not validate as XHTML 1.1. I have used <img usemap="#mymap" ...
> /> and later <map id="mymap">.
>
> While validating it as XHTML 1.1 an error is
>
> Error: character "#" is not allowed in the value of attribute
> "usemap"
>
> However, the same document validates as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and
> Strict. Any ideas what is wrong? I havent found any hints that would
> suggest this is changed in 1.1 and usemap's correct value still seems
> to be idref (URI).
This is confusing, and what might be done to reduce the confusion is a
correction to the XHTML 1.1 specification, which is why I'm sending a
copy of this to maintainer of that document.
In XML (as well as in SGML), when an attribute is declared to take IDREF
value, the value must be an identifier as such, without any # prefix, and
an identifier that is defined elsewhere in the document in an ID
attribute. More formally:
"Validity constraint: IDREF
Values of type IDREF must match the Name production, and values of type
IDREFS must match Names; each Name must match the value of an ID
attribute on some element in the XML document; i.e. IDREF values must
match the value of some ID attribute."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#idref
In XHTML 1.0, the usemap attribute in <img> is declared as %URI whereas
in XHTML 1.1 it is declared as IDREF. The same applies to some other
attributes as well, like usemap in <img>. I haven't studied the
differences systematically, but surely there are changes that should be
listed at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes
It is not sufficient to mention that "On the a and map elements, the name
attribute has been removed in favor of the id attribute". Related actual
changes elsewhere should be explicitly mentioned too. A clarifying
reference could be made to
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/
abstract_modules.html#s_imapmodule>
This is a real change that makes some valid XHTML 1.0 documents invalid
under XHTML 1.1. In the other direction, things are different, since
usemap="foo" is valid in XHTML 1.0 but lacks useful meaning, since the
semantics is as defined in HTML 4.01:
"usemap = uri [CT]
This attribute associates an image map with an element. The image map is
defined by a MAP element. The value of usemap must match the value of the
name attribute of the associated MAP element."
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#
adef-usemap>
The semantic change should be noted too. XHTML specifications generally
make normative references to HTML specifications as regards to semantics,
and here the reference needs to be modified suitably.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

FOLLOWUP 1:

From: "Austin, Daniel" <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:30:06 -0600
Greetings Jukka,
The HTML Working Group recently discussed your email below. Thanks very
much for your continued support and review of the HTML Recommendations. At
our Group's most recent face-to-face meeting, this issue was discussed and
the WG has acknowleged that this is indeed an error in the XHTML 1.1
Recommendation, and we will rectify this error as soon as possible. The
value of the usemap attribute should in fact be of type URI rather than of
type IDREF. Thanks again for pointing this out.
Regards,
D-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jkorpela@cs.tut.fi [mailto:jkorpela@cs.tut.fi]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:28 PM
> To: w3c-html-wg@w3.org
> Cc: voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com
> Subject: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value (PR#650)
>
>
> From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
> To: www-html-editor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HELP: XHTML 1.1 and usemap's value
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:51:17 +0200
> Message-Id:
> <20020128225116.MQVI24910.fep01-app.kolumbus.fi@oemcomputer>
>
> [posted to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
> and mailed to www-html-editor@w3.org]
>
> In message news:a33jn8$12s$1@mordred.cc.jyu.fi
> Ville Seppänen <rissepp@itu.st.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that a document which contains a client-side imagemap
> > does not validate as XHTML 1.1. I have used <img usemap="#mymap" ...
> > /> and later <map id="mymap">.
> >
> > While validating it as XHTML 1.1 an error is
> >
> > Error: character "#" is not allowed in the value of attribute
> > "usemap"
> >
> > However, the same document validates as XHTML 1.0 Transitional and
> > Strict. Any ideas what is wrong? I havent found any hints that would
> > suggest this is changed in 1.1 and usemap's correct value
> still seems
> > to be idref (URI).
>
> This is confusing, and what might be done to reduce the
> confusion is a
> correction to the XHTML 1.1 specification, which is why I'm sending a
> copy of this to maintainer of that document.
>
> In XML (as well as in SGML), when an attribute is declared to
> take IDREF
> value, the value must be an identifier as such, without any #
> prefix, and
> an identifier that is defined elsewhere in the document in an ID
> attribute. More formally:
>
> "Validity constraint: IDREF
>
> Values of type IDREF must match the Name production, and
> values of type
> IDREFS must match Names; each Name must match the value of an ID
> attribute on some element in the XML document; i.e. IDREF values must
> match the value of some ID attribute."
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#idref
>
> In XHTML 1.0, the usemap attribute in <img> is declared as
> %URI whereas
> in XHTML 1.1 it is declared as IDREF. The same applies to some other
> attributes as well, like usemap in <img>. I haven't studied the
> differences systematically, but surely there are changes that
> should be
> listed at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes
> It is not sufficient to mention that "On the a and map
> elements, the name
> attribute has been removed in favor of the id attribute".
> Related actual
> changes elsewhere should be explicitly mentioned too. A clarifying
> reference could be made to
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/
> abstract_modules.html#s_imapmodule>
>
> This is a real change that makes some valid XHTML 1.0
> documents invalid
> under XHTML 1.1. In the other direction, things are different, since
> usemap="foo" is valid in XHTML 1.0 but lacks useful meaning,
> since the
> semantics is as defined in HTML 4.01:
> "usemap = uri [CT]
> This attribute associates an image map with an element. The
> image map is
> defined by a MAP element. The value of usemap must match the
> value of the
> name attribute of the associated MAP element."
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#
> adef-usemap>
>
> The semantic change should be noted too. XHTML specifications
> generally
> make normative references to HTML specifications as regards
> to semantics,
> and here the reference needs to be modified suitably.
>
> --
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
> Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
>
>
>
>